Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

The Closing Statements

The two candidates' closing statements showed voters the true difference between them, which is far less about issues than about approach. Clinton billed herself as a known commodity and a pragmatist, Obama cast himself as a transformational figure and an unapologetic idealist.

"You can count on me," Clinton said during her close. "You know where I stand."

"We are at a defining moment in out history," said Obama. "The American people have lost faith in their government."

Boiled down, that is the space between the two and the choice they offer voters. Clinton argues she has been there and done that. Obama seems to concede the idea that Clinton is a master of the political game, but he argues that the game fundamentally poorly serves the average voter.

It's a fascinating dichotomy between two candidates, who have spent the last 15 months getting to this point -- the beginning of the end.

Remember that opening and closing statements tend to factor heavily into how voters' perceive who won (and lost) the debate. These debates are all about moments, and the opening and closing moments offer the candidates the most unobstructed chance to have one such shining moment.

Posted by: Ann: "That was not a debate. That was a flower handed to Hillary Clinton. Why wasn't Penn mentioned. Or how about her husband's support of a trade deal with Colombia?"

Can someone please tell me why Hillary Clinton is responsible for the decisions her husband made as President?!

This is the first time in history that the spouse of a former President is running for the position. Are we going to set a precedence now that anyone running for office will be held responsible for the decisions made by their spouses who were, or still are, in office?

I don't care what everybody says that Barack did not win this debate. Why couldn't he? He is being hammered at every turn by these two moderators to the entertainment of Hillary. One thing for sure: Barack has my respect and vote.

I only caught the last 1/2 hour of the so called debate-it was clearly an Obama bashing and totally reprehensible. Just a note that white people need to stop saying black people are only voting for Obama because he is black. That is a total insult to our intelligence.. did Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton win 90 % of the black vote. no. Black people are proud of Barack Obama because of his intelligence, compassion and desire to bring unity to this nation for all people..He is half white..Caucasians get silly looks on their faces when that fact is brought up-like oh yeah, hee, hee. People need to stop looking at skin color..all colors are beautiful and no one should be judged by old baseless prejudice. Stop the cheap tricks and debasing of each other.Don't allow the totally corrupt GOP (Grand Old Party)good old boys continue to rape the middle class and build their own fortunes on our backs..What a disgrace. America Wake up.

my immediate impression of what I watched First it was a Q&A for media interests not a debate. The questions always seemed to be from a tabloid point of view, trying to make a sensation if they can get something to stick that we can hear for days, and means nothing. I'm so very tired of that tactic when this is such an important time for the survival of our democracy. We need and informed, serious public. I would like to know who the power brokers are behind the candidates but that is under lock and key. No investigative reporting to be found.
When the candidates spoke about Healthcare, getting out of Iraq, Iran and the economy at last there was some substance.
My opinion was that Hillary spoke with the conviction of a person who has a well thought out plan where Barack stumbled around like he wished he could refer to the couch's play book.

I guess we count on her (and her 35 years of experience) to say and do anything, to get elected and to stand "pragmatically" anywhere on the issues. We have had 8 years of that type of immoral,deceptive and indeed elitist leadership that disrespects Americans and manipulates our fears and anxieties.

Obama looked bad tonight because he finally got the kind of scrutiny every other candidate gets. Thank you ABC and the commentators. I'm so sick and tired of the media kissing his behind I could throw up.

After seeing this debate it's hard to understand why anyone would not want someone like Hillary Clinton in the White House. Her enthusiasm and willingness to take on and resolve the kind of issues that face our country is extraordinary.

No matter what she is presented with, or what problems our country faces that come up in a debate, she seems to have already put together a well thought-out plan. Or at least has an in-depth understanding of how to go about putting one together. And her experience in politics only enriches what she has to offer. It boggles my mind why the Democrats of this country would not want to take advantage of that.

I don't think Barack Obama has given much thought beyond the 3 or 4 major plans he has had to come up with. I don't think he has the knowledge and background needed to take on the numerous and complex challenges our nation faces.

Issues regarding his patriotism (the lapel flag), his relationships with Rezco, Reverend Wright and Ayers will all be fodder for the grist mill in the final election if he is the Democratic candidate, and it needs to be determined right now how they will play out. And after seeing the debate tonight, it doesn't look good for him.

Anyone who watched this debate lost because they wasted time they could have used in a meaningful way. The candidates lost because they needed rest a lot more than they needed to be subjected to such a gotcha session. Charles and George lost because behaved like total losers; it is hard to imagine they will ever live this night down. ABC lost because they presented the worst debate many people can remember witnessing. The sponsors lost because they paid money for nothin'. There were no winners.

Why is it that both Charlie and George are suddenly attacked and this debate considered bias?

For too long Obama has received a pass and the royal treatment. The media has been reluctant to bring out relevant issues on Obama because they are sold on this candidate. It took Charlie and George who frankly, like Fox News, had the GUTS that the media and some of you here, to begin to ask Obama some hard questions.

Common, you have here an untested candidate with almost no resume and experience to offer and who folds at any hard questions? Is this what the liberal minds have sunk to? Are we to expect to vote for a candidate with too many unresolved issues for the most critical job in our country? The left liberal mind can go somewhere else, if you are that naive!!!

OBAMA NEEDS TO BE FULLY VETTED AND INVESTIGATED because that is the least that the public should demand. Obama needs to fully explain the Rev. Wright issue, William Ayrs, Rezco and all his left wing connections. He also needs to do some major work and stop spinning because it has finally come out that he is truly out of touch with a great segment of our population in middle America.

So, my KUDOS to Charlie and George for finally coming forward and doing what the great majority of the media has FAILED to do.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence here should stop this attack and analyze that you are throwing yourselves into a candidate that could be a shocker of a dissapointment and major failure in the elections.

Why is it that both Charlie and George are suddenly attacked and this debate considered bias?

For too long Obama has received a pass and the royal treatment. The media has been reluctant to bring out relevant issues on Obama because they are sold on this candidate. It took Charlie and George who frankly, like Fox News, had the GUTS that the media and some of you here, to begin to ask Obama some hard questions.

Common, you have here an untested candidate with almost no resume and experience to offer and who folds at any hard questions? Is this what the liberal minds have sunk to? Are we to expect to vote for a candidate with too many unresolved issues for the most critical job in our country? The left liberal mind can go somewhere else, if you are that naive!!!

OBAMA NEEDS TO BE FULLY VETTED AND INVESTIGATED because that is the least that the public should demand. Obama needs to fully explain the Rev. Wright issue, William Ayrs, Rezco and all his left wing connections. He also needs to do some major work and stop spinning because it has finally come out that he is truly out of touch with a great segment of our population in middle America.

So, my KUDOS to Charlie and George for finally coming forward and doing what the great majority of the media has FAILED to do.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence here should stop this attack and analyze that you are throwing yourselves into a candidate that could be a shocker of a dissapointment and major failure in the elections.

Not just ABC, but the few idiots who enjoyed the debate need to have Annie's comments painted on their TV screens:

"We could be on the brink of a depression for all I know. I'm having trouble putting food on the table and gas in the car. America may have been in the business of torture. We are at war. Our jobs are being moved out of the country. My daughter is ill and has no health care. Charlie and George think lapel pins and Tuzla and I don't know what are the most important things of all?"

We are on the brink of a depression, if we haven't already crossed the line. We are in the business of torture. We went out of our way to start a $3 trillion plus war that our grandchildren will still be paying for. Our jobs are moved out of the country in the name of "free trade", which also harms developing countries. Food and gas prices have jumped big time, but the government bails out Wall Street.

A tough question for Obama would be "how do we fix this?" not "where's your lapel pin?"

And the Washington Post is just as guilty of making a circus out of an election that will literally decide, for many people, want or prosperity, sickness or health, war or family; for some people, even life or death.

After reading the comments on this board I am shocked. What is really sad is that both sides only hear what they want to hear. The debate is not supposed to change minds from one candidate to the other. It is to inform the people that have not made a decision... You know the ones that are NOT on the blogs 24/7. Stop acting like spolied children and grow up.

After, watching the media kiss the ring of Obama for months, it was refreshing to finally see him asked about Ayers, Wright, and his condescending remarks about people different than him.Unfortunately, instead of answering the questions, he ducked, dodged, and change the subject. Everytime Hillary answered a question about policy, Obama sounded like a parrot. Me too Me too. I am glad to hear his pledge not to raise taxes on the first $250,000. As a retired military person, I was taken aback by Obama's disrepect of military Generals. He proved tonight that he is not ready for prime time.

I moved to San Francisco area almost five years ago, but keep abreast of doings in Philly. I've followed the campaign and can't wait to see how this election turns out. Because of the 3 hr. time difference, I saw comments on the debate before the debate was broadcast out here.

To prevent my blood pressure from going through the roof, I chose not to watch the debate. I surely hope the people of my birthplace will have the good sense to vote based on the issues and ignore the character assassinations that have marked this campaign.

The Obama activists, that is, the extreme left wing of the party (MoveOn, Democracy for America, DailyKos, Keith Olbermann etc) are threatening to do to the Democratic Party what they did to us in the Connecticut Senate race. They got Ned Lamont to beat Lieberman in the primaries only to see the former get wiped out in the real race. Now, since I don't care much for Lieberman I tought that was rather cute. Big mistake. I had no idea how malicious these guys are. Their sunny fronts like Politico (this article notwithstanding) and MSNBC are trying to shut Hillary down. I say to all those who have been penalized for fighting tough battles. To all those who have paid their dues only to see a cute, ambitious upstart stroll in and steal the show. To all those who favor substance over style. To all those who have had to work so hard only to see the tall and young and good-looking get the credit. To all those who are sick of seeing hard earned experience get wiped out by "charisma".

What a joke this debate was. Why did no one directly confront Obama with his allusion that struggling small-town people are basically bigots! Look at this statement, people:

"It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

That was not a debate. That was a flower handed to Hillary Clinton. Why wasn't Penn mentioned. Or how about her husband's support of a trade deal with Colombia?

Posted by: Ann | April 16, 2008 11:19 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
erm, Annie, it's hard to talk about one candidate's spouse's trade deals when the other candidate has a spiritual advisor/uncle/mentor of 20 years who has been preaching things like this to families and children:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people."

"God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people ... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye."

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

"We started the AIDS virus ... as a means of genocide against people of color."

It wasn't "fluff", it was smack talkin' and if it had happened on the street corner instead of national TV, the Red Cross would be putting out an urgent appeal at this very moment, and there would be a couple of media talking heads looking even more bloodless than they usually do -- if such a thing is possible.

The three biggest issues in this race are Iraq, the economy and health-care. This debate started and ended with fluff, with a little bit of substance in between. It wasn't the candidates' fault that the questions were focused on sound bites.

The silver lining of this evenings debacle, is just the fact that Senator Obama was able to hold his own against this three against one onslaught of attacks shows what a true man of strength and integrity he is, so by that fact alone he won this mockery of a debate.

What a joke this debate was. Why did no one directly confront Obama with his allusion that struggling small-town people are basically bigots! Look at this statement, people:

"It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Posted by: Obama called small-towners bigots | April 16, 2008 11:18 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent point. Imagine Bill Clinton suggesting that blacks have "antipathy to people who aren't like them"! He would be lynched, folks! No one in mainstream media has the guts to be fair and to confront Obama with real questions.

What they did tonite was to basically say, "look we can ask [psuedo] tough questions to Obama too". What a farce. Where are the sort of questions, Bill and Hillary have been asked for the last 15 months.

That was not a debate. That was a flower handed to Hillary Clinton. Why wasn't Penn mentioned. Or how about her husband's support of a trade deal with Colombia? She certainly spent the time she did get talking about how much better life was under her husband's presidency (I agree, but he isn't on the ballot). If ever there was an inkling she believes it is her right to become president, I heard it tonight.

ABC's Charles and Dian Sewer are both pro-Clinton and both process quite plain and flat mind (I am trying to avoid using the words mediocre, unintellectual, and trivial). Therefore it was no wonder the questions asked by Charles were both vicious toward BRO and meaningless in general. George was a lot more thoughtful and intellectual than that self important Charles, but it apparently was Charles' call. My impression was even so, BHO handled well. He might well be limited, but at least survived. If he did not win much, at least he did not loose.

What a joke this debate was. Why did no one directly confront Obama with his allusion that struggling small-town people are basically bigots! Look at this statement, people:

"It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Why is the mainstream media unwilling to confront Obama with his blatant lies instead of being so perfunctory as they were in this debate.

What about all of this stuff? When will it be covered like Hillary's Bosnia stuff?!!:

Obama said he was for a single payer health system, but now opposes plans that cover every American.

He promised to repeal the Patriot Act, but then voted to extend it.

He promised to normalize relations with Cuba, but flip-flopped when he started running for president.

He rails against NAFTA in Ohio while his top economic advisor assures the Canadians his rhetoric is just "political positioning."

He promises to opt in to public financing if the GOP nominee does, but then breaks that pledge in real time.

He promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months, and now his top foreign policy adviser says that he's not relying on the plan.

At first he knew of no controversial remarks from his pastor. Then he knew it. Then he knew some but not others.

At first the "union" that brought him into this world was caused by the bridge crossing/civil rights movement in Selma which, by the way, actually happened 5 years afterwards. Long after he was born.

He flattered Kennedys by crediting them for funding his father's arrival to US when the Kennedys had nothing to do with it.

Don't even get me going over the questionnaires he has filled indicating positions he has completely contradicted during this campaign cycle.

Obama claims he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Semantics. Because about HALF of his donations come from big donors and "bundlers" who in terms of influence on campaign and favors they expect in return are not much different from lobbyists. His bundlers include partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. Use of bundlers was perfected by George W. Bush who established a hierarchy of "Rangers" and "Pioneers" to monitor their progress.

Obama didn't think he was experienced enough to run for President in 2004. "I am a believer in knowing what you are doing when you apply for a job. And I think that If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the senate. Now there's some people who might be comfortable doing that but I am not one of those people."

There is a reason why this debate was so skewed towards Obama. Because in all this time Hillary has had ONE faux pas whiel Obama has had scandals after scandals after scandals. Folks, you cannot equate Hillary's robbing to Obama's manslaughters.

Considering that this was the first debate to cover the Wright issue, I am shocked that Obama was basically asked a couple of routine questions on it.

The dumbing down of America led by its msm media was on full display. These neanderthal/reality tv nincompoops actually spent a FULL hour on the same old bs gotcha questioning which have clearly been rejected by numerous polling )showing no effect other than the Clinton/Bosnia whopper). I would have been just as pleased if they had forgoten about that alltogether as well and discussed the substantive issues (eg. was there a single question on the environment and trade with China?)...rather than starting to cram commercials and shortening answers due to lack of time at the end.

Obama when he becomes president should convene a new kind of FCC to regulate what has been de-regulated...meaning more options for people to click off the channel than being held hostage to bs use of the airwaves by large conglomerates.

Totally disappointed with Charlie Gibson and pee wee George. Expected much more, but was treated to TABLOID, GUTTER journalism pretentiousness of Charles and George. Their biasness was naked. Tonight it was three, Charlie, George and Hillary against one, Barack.

This triangulated attack only makes Barack stronger and reinvigorates his supporters.

ABC made a mockery out of this so-called "debate" which was really more of an inquisition. I never thought I'd ever quote Clarence Thomas approvingly -- but he said it right -- "A high-tech lynching".

No surprise, considering George Snufflopagous has been playing pocket pool with the Clintons for dogs' years. But still just as pitiful and pathetic as it gets.

Buh-bye, ABC. People can't stomach bullies and punks. You qualify as both at once, not an easy feat to pull off. You should change your logo to a rolling doughnut, then hop on the horse you rode in on, and go chase it.

If ABC got the exclusive right to televise the Second Coming, I'd wait until it came out on DVD.

Barack will get a big bounce from ABC's slime session and they will rue the day.

I missed the debate tonight. I hope Mr. Obama wiped the floor with the evil HRC. You see, Chief Two Dogs is an elitist and would like to see another smart guy like himself in the White House this January. Elitists Rule!

So, first, you should be ASHAMED of yourself, for not standing up for your kind. I wouldn't say this if blacks were not standing up for Obama to the tune of 90%. SO WHERE IS YOUR SPINE? You should be ashamed of yourself. Women are treated like filth in this country. You ought to go to Vegas to see the brutality they have to suffer. Do a search on the word sex to see what a pathetic state the women are in. Now, that is not the reason why you should vote for Hillary
-------------------------------------------------
You've already said that she should be ashamed of herself for not standing up for her kind, and likened it to the notion that blacks are supporting Obama solely due to his race. So your argument is that all women should support Hillary, and be ASHAMED if they don't. You're clearly unwaveringly blinded by bias, rendering the rest of your post (which is recycled from the earlier posts) not worth reading. Appending your preamble with "now, that is not the reason you should vote for hillary" does nothing to retract your lack of rational consideration of the two candidates.

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?

2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?

I dislike Obama intensely because when it suits him he swings from a scoundrel to a saint so effortlessly. This whole race issue is a perfect illustration of it.

The race row really started when Bill Clinton called Obama's Iraq stand a "fairy tale". Apparently this phrase "fairy tale" is racist in any context. Where was Obama's high flown pedantry when Bill was being cruelly turned into a racist over this?

Hillary tried to say that activists (such as MLK) require Presidents/legislators (LBJ) to convert policies into law. According to Obama this statement is tinged with racism. Where was Obama's contextualizing and preaching for forbearance then?

Another one of his spiritual advisors from Harvard writes an op-ed saying the 3am ad is racist! For the first time in my life I saw even Obama supporters uncomfortably shrugging off that claim. Did we hear anything from Obama? Any post-racial calls?

Geraldine Ferraro at worst was crudely trying to say that Obama wouldn't have come this far in the race without 80-90% of the African-American vote. Perhaps an imprudent statement but it was made in a paid speech in an insignificant forum and would hardly have been noticed if Obama's camp had not pushed it. She was merely one of Hillary's hilariously big finance team. Where was Obama's mature outlook towards race then? What was especially galling was Obama, in his dysfunctional union speech, trying to equate Wright's hateful, anti-American speech with Ferraro's remarks! Whoa! This guy is positively reptilian. I mean, chameleons have more consistency than this multi-faceted slickster. To compare the hate speech of a mentor/spiritual advisor of 20 years with mildly insensitive remarks of a woman tangentially connected to Hillary's campaign is really something. And he wanted Ferraro to resign straight-away. He came with hatchets at her. Look at the cold-blooded nature of people like David Axelrod who sought and got Ferraro's support several times in the past for minority candidates and is known to be her friend. No benefit of doubt for a friend. No respect for a former democratic vice-presidential nominee.

That Obama's candidacy has been sustained by "we know what is good for you" attitude of mainstream press. That such intellectuals should be so naive is what is galls me. Did they really think a person who ginned up a real estate deal with a top-notch crook to add a 10 square foot of land to a $1.5 million dollar home is of any remarkable probity? How ding-dong in the head do you have to be to expect that such a person wouldn't be upto all sorts of other crookery?

And, of course, so it has been the last few weeks. All kinds of crookery. He relentlessly beats up Hillary for being supportive of NAFTA while his top economic aide comforts Canada - ah, don't worry, it's all campaign rhetoric. Approaching Iowa, he viciously beats up Hillary for not having a firm Iraq withdrawal date, for suggesting that such a date is hard to predict not knowing what she would inherit as president. Meanwhile, his top foreign-policy aide tells another ally that Obama wouldn't be relying on some withdrawal plan he has for the campaign trail!

I mean, in terms of crookery, Nixon, Rezko, Norman Hsu have nothing on this guy.

What is truly remarkable is the incapacity of those stupid "latte liberals" to get down from their Ivory Tower of wine and pastries and take some responsibility here. It is time, poets and star-gazers, to put aside sentimentalizing, and give us a hand as we throw this guy overboard. There is a policy on this ship, folks. No rats allowed. Put Hillary down, she's not the one and give us a hand over here.

The most shocking thing I heard tonight came from Sen. Clinton who declared that as President, she would apply American nuclear umbrella protection not only to Israel, but to other middle eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. This is a massive imperial expansion of America's military reach way beyond that under NATO arrangement. I don't know which is more troubling, that Mrs. Clinton offered such proposal that even GWB has not, or nobody seems to be paying attention and everybody is instead harping on all the tabloidal "controversies".

Obviously you Hillary fans missed something...she lied again during the debate...she said she had apologized for lying (which is not true she has never apologized for it only saying she misspoke and she is human)...and continued the charade by saying she should get more sleep...gawd this woman never stops lying.

Posted by: Linda | April 16, 2008 10:56 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, Linda. 90% of African Americans are voting for Obama. Trust me they are not entirely voting because he is so d@mn honest and strong on policy. 90%. So, first, you should be ASHAMED of yourself, for not standing up for your kind. I wouldn't say this if blacks were not standing up for Obama to the tune of 90%. SO WHERE IS YOUR SPINE? You should be ashamed of yourself. Women are treated like filth in this country. You ought to go to Vegas to see the brutality they have to suffer. Do a search on the word sex to see what a pathetic state the women are in. Now, that is not the reason why you should vote for Hillary. But at least be fair to her. Here are Obama's lies:

Obama said he was for a single payer health system, but now opposes plans that cover every American.

He promised to repeal the Patriot Act, but then voted to extend it.

He promised to normalize relations with Cuba, but flip-flopped when he started running for president.

He rails against NAFTA in Ohio while his top economic advisor assures the Canadians his rhetoric is just "political positioning."

He promises to opt in to public financing if the GOP nominee does, but then breaks that pledge in real time.

He promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months, and now his top foreign policy adviser says that he's not relying on the plan.

At first he knew of no controversial remarks from his pastor. Then he knew it. Then he knew some but not others.

At first the "union" that brought him into this world was caused by the bridge crossing/civil rights movement in Selma which, by the way, actually happened 5 years afterwards. Long after he was born.

He flattered Kennedys by crediting them for funding his father's arrival to US when the Kennedys had nothing to do with it.

Don't even get me going over the questionnaires he has filled indicating positions he has completely contradicted during this campaign cycle.

Obama claims he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Semantics. Because about HALF of his donations come from big donors and "bundlers" who in terms of influence on campaign and favors they expect in return are not much different from lobbyists. His bundlers include partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. Use of bundlers was perfected by George W. Bush who established a hierarchy of "Rangers" and "Pioneers" to monitor their progress.

Obama didn't think he was experienced enough to run for President in 2004. "I am a believer in knowing what you are doing when you apply for a job. And I think that If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the senate. Now there's some people who might be comfortable doing that but I am not one of those people."

Chris can you explain how this debate was not a biased one? George was a former employee of her husband, and owes his fame and fortune to Bill. They kept showing shots of Chelsea throughout. They asked questions that have no relevance to who would be a better executive for 45 minutes targeting Barack Obama. Hey, his words in San Francisco may have been silly, stupid, elitist- but at least he is honest.

This was the worst debate of all of the 21 Dem debates. Completely focused on the "character" issues the Republicans have been pushing since forever. I guess the debate in the media is already on Republican terms - "which candidate is the most liberal elite snobby and unAmerican?" Were there no real policy things to talk about? A total embarrassment.

FOR ONCE, the media asked tough questions of Obama. FOR ONCE, after 15 months of non-stop negativity, the media had the balls to ask the wonder boy some tough questions. And you know what, IT WASN'T ENOUGH.

Obviously you Hillary fans missed something...she lied again during the debate...she said she had apologized for lying (which is not true she has never apologized for it only saying she misspoke and she is human)...and continued the charade by saying she should get more sleep...gawd this woman never stops lying. I cant believe people missed this. But yes this was a disgraceful debate...why didnt they hammer Hillary about her lying on her accomplishments that she never did...her association with people that are now in prison...her case with Peter Paul....gawd I could go on forever...this was a total set up for Obama...they kept showing Rendell and Chelsea and Nutter..all her supporters looking on while their little planned debate went on. This is so totally wrong. I will never never vote for Hillary. And I only hope no Obama fans will either if he is screwed on the nomination.

"The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor." "

Its a free country and the good part the nabobs cant prevent people from voting for Obama and ignoring their fear mongering. Its actually helping him.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 16, 2008 10:46 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a country which wants its women to be dumb, blond, good-looking and working out the bed. Nothing more.

This was a total farce, not a debate, not a discussion. An appalling, farcical presentation of media at its worst. Why not crucify Obama, and hand the nomination to Hillary, as the hopeless Charley and George tried their damdest to to tonight. We were totally disppointed with this
ABC debate r

This was actually the BEST debate I have seen. You notice that all the Obama people are in a up-raw because the ABC people asked him hard questions, about him, mostly...You noticed that he stumbled on several of them...It is about time someone has started to ask hard, direct questions, that require answers. We are tired of the 'general walk on the water answers'...He has shown that he is off in several of his thoughts and his direction...Good for ABC...it is about time...

If you want to overcome the bias built into the American system that has been holding us back, then vote for Obama.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 16, 2008 10:44 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to vote against misogny, if you want to show the world that USA doesn't simply like it's women on Porn.com, if you want to show people that a good, strong, competent woman can lead USA as well, if you want to show the world that a woman should not be defined by the actions of her husband, then vote for Hillary.

"Remember that opening and closing statements tend to factor heavily into how voters' perceive who won (and lost) the debate. These debates are all about moments, and the opening and closing moments offer the candidates the most unobstructed chance to have one such shining moment." Chris Cillizza, dude--

Are you kidding me? Is this some kind of subliminal message for the stupid? Wrong! Voters care about how they answer the questions asked, and then how they answer the follow up questions. Opening and closing "statements" are just pre-written speeches. They account for nothing in the voter's mind. Only the media's. Plus, Charlie Gibson and George S. rock as moderators. They knew their stuff.

If you want to overcome the bias built into the American system that has been holding us back, then vote for Obama. The middle class no longer exists and soon poverty will be back big time with the economic royalist attitude of Bush and the GOP. I am already taxed too much because of the bias against two income eastern families who make a lot and get no deductions. I am not worried about tax fairness, I am worried we wont get any fairness from the GOP or from NY based HIllary who has Citibank and the finance industry as her constituents. Where was she when things were being messed up? She didnt lift a finger. Now she wants to save us, please, what a joke.

Obama has destroyed the Dems for another four years! Could he be a plant? Things are just getting worse for a party who can't get its act together.

Posted by: dennis | April 16, 2008 10:40 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What else do you expect from a cheap scoundrel who cooked up a real-estate deal with that criminal Rezko to add 10 square foot to his $2 million home. For 10 square foot! Unbelievable.

This was Obama's unguarded reflection on Middle American economic anxiety: "It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

First, religion is a cultural value not a disease of the poor. Second, It is not usual for people who belong to small-time America to suffer from bigotry. Third, if anti-trade sentiment is, for those who are suffering, only a "way to explain their frustrations" then why has Obama been going around saying what a bad thing NAFTA is.

Never has a politician packed so much astounding stupidity in a single statement.

1. Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced "development plan", an important element of his attack on the government's advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)

2. Obama advocated the nationalization of "European" and "Asian" owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the "indigenous" black population. (pp. 32 -33)

3. Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on "the rich" even up to the 100% level, arguing that, "there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay" (p. 30) and that, "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." (p. 31)

4. Obama advocates price controls on hotels and the tourist industry, so that the middle class and not only the rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists. (p. 33)

5. Obama advocates government owned and operated "model farms" as a means of teaching modern farming techniques to farmers. (p. 33)

6. Obama strongly supports the governments assertion of a "non-aligned" status in the contest between Western nations and communist nations aligned with the Soviet Union and China. (p. 26)

The Obama activists, that is, the extreme left wing of the party (MoveOn, Democracy for America, DailyKos, Keith Olbermann etc) are threatening to do to the Democratic Party what they did to us in the Connecticut Senate race. They got Ned Lamont to beat Lieberman in the primaries only to see the former get wiped out in the real race. Now, since I don't care much for Lieberman I tought that was rather cute. Big mistake. I had no idea how malicious these guys are. Their sunny fronts like Politico (this article notwithstanding) and MSNBC are trying to shut Hillary down. I say to all those who have been penalized for fighting tough battles. To all those who have paid their dues only to see a cute, ambitious upstart stroll in and steal the show. To all those who favor substance over style. To all those who have had to work so hard only to see the tall and young and good-looking get the credit. To all those who are sick of seeing hard earned experience get wiped out by "charisma". To all of you: MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO HILLARY RIGHT NOW.

It's not a false issue. Closing tax loopholes that make the tax system more fair as long as it raises more money is OK. But raising taxes in way that will raise less revenue is economic insanity. Supply side economics is bad enough. But this is orders of magnitude stupider. It's class envy masquerading as tax policy.

The point of tax policy is to raise money for the government, not to punish people for making money.

Obama said he was for a single payer health system, but now opposes plans that cover every American.

He promised to repeal the Patriot Act, but then voted to extend it.

He promised to normalize relations with Cuba, but flip-flopped when he started running for president.

He rails against NAFTA in Ohio while his top economic advisor assures the Canadians his rhetoric is just "political positioning."

He promises to opt in to public financing if the GOP nominee does, but then breaks that pledge in real time.

He promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months, and now his top foreign policy adviser says that he's not relying on the plan.

At first he knew of no controversial remarks from his pastor. Then he knew it. Then he knew some but not others.

At first the "union" that brought him into this world was caused by the bridge crossing/civil rights movement in Selma which, by the way, actually happened 5 years afterwards. Long after he was born.

He flattered Kennedys by crediting them for funding his father's arrival to US when the Kennedys had nothing to do with it.

Don't even get me going over the questionnaires he has filled indicating positions he has completely contradicted during this campaign cycle.

Obama claims he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Semantics. Because about HALF of his donations come from big donors and "bundlers" who in terms of influence on campaign and favors they expect in return are not much different from lobbyists. His bundlers include partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. Use of bundlers was perfected by George W. Bush who established a hierarchy of "Rangers" and "Pioneers" to monitor their progress.

Obama didn't think he was experienced enough to run for President in 2004. "I am a believer in knowing what you are doing when you apply for a job. And I think that If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the senate. Now there's some people who might be comfortable doing that but I am not one of those people."

Finally, Hillary apologizes for her Bosnia account that she knew was not true. It only took heaven knows how many weeks and endless questioning and her stubborn resistance to the truth? No wonder her honesty numbers are at the bottom of the toilet headed for the nearest sewage treatment plant.

Hello!! What is all the hoo haa about? This primary was over after Wisconsin. He won more delegates in March than she did. Only the media and Billary are keeping this alive. He has picked up 69 supers since Super Tuesday, she has gained one. One!!

Don't worry MR. Yours is basicallly the only serious comment here. The other comments are just shrill, stupid. These Obamabots are basically a whiny, screechy confederacy of dunces. They are especially filthy when they have misplaced their pacifiers.

Obama's right. This is a defining time in our history and it's time for a change.

Of course I'm smart enough to be embarassed by Gibson and George Stephanopolous' comments. I'm also smart enough to know a hit job by an ex-Clinton Press Secretary when I see one.

What we watched tonight was truly revolutionary and ground-breaking. It was the last dying gasp of the Clinton/Bush/Rove/Penn school of doing this. This brand of politics is simply dead, thank goodness. And they're finding it out slowly but surely. Obama won this debate, because he rose above this stupid, inane muck. Obama wins.

Wow - that was the sorriest "debate" I've ever seen. No focus on the issues whatsoever - just a hatchet job. But nice job actually trying to find a morsel of information in there, Chris. I admire your sticking it out to the end.

Posted by: Let the National Enquirer Do the Next One | April 16, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

70 minutes into the debate, and George says "Let's turn now to the economy, which voters say is the number one issue...". Thanx for nothing guys!!!!!

Print out Annie's comments, above, and staple them to George Stephanopolous's and Charlie Gibson's foreheads. Good heavens, people, are you smart enough to be embarrassed by this? Your viewers are smarter than this.

Whatever. But I really am an independent. And maybe it would be a good idea if ALL the candidates started addressing real issues -- like the one I asked about -- if they want to convince me, and millions like me, to vote for them in November. Because, I guarantee you, that we're all going to be a lot more interested in things like who will raise taxes and why than whether Obama can bowl or whether HRC laughs funny.

By the way, how do you figure the personal attacks benefit Obama who YOU apparently are shilling for.

The bias of ABC will help Obama in Pennsylvania. People are too smart to somehow be led by the nose by snot nosed elitists like Gibson and Stephanopolis. Meanwhile, Hillary ate their snot nosed approach up like she was in league with these boys. Its so obviously poison politics that people will reject it.

United we stand, divided we fall. The unwillingness of either candidate to outright say that they would take an attack on Israel from a nuclear Iran as an attack on the United States is troubling. Clinton took a tougher stance, but neither seems committed to our allies. If we allow a coalition of Middle Eastern States, unstable African dictators, and China to attack our Democratic friends, eventually we'll have no friends left when they get to us.

I felt moderators were not civil to the candidates,especially Barack, they were not letting him finish his sentences and interjecting during his response.
Overall, I feel Barack look more thoughtful and presidential. He was honest and refreshing whereas Hillary looked pugnacious and mean.

Also, Why ABC was focussing on Clinton supporters, Was George S. on rolls of Clinton.

MR Clinton said on one occasion that she would close a ton of loop holes, i.e. raise taxes. When I am paying so much for gas, i surely want some tax fairness, and its not shocking to me that millionaires pay more. Obama said you cant keep writing checks to China as the GOP is doing. Roosevelt was for the New Deal; Truman the Fair Deal. Your making a false issue.

I have been watching debates since Nixon and have never seen one like this. Why didn't they just get Rosie O'Donnell or Jerry Springer to ask the questions? Maybe the National Enquirer. Where was the banner that said "Real World Election 08".

I watched about an hour of it and turned it off. I wasted an hour while they talked about every stupid thing related to this primary except issues. Oh wait I got to see Charlie Gibson fuss about his taxes (what was that all about anyway?).

ABC should be banned from all further debates. I will be boycotting their news given how stinky it obviously is. It was hard to judge the candidates responses because I was so distracted by the nonsense they were being asked that they could have said "yes I intend to take over Mars when I am president" and I would have nodded. I was mesmerized by the dumbing down and stupefying of the whole process.

We could be on the brink of a depression for all I know. I'm having trouble putting food on the table and gas in the car. America may have been in the business of torture. We are at war. Our jobs are being moved out of the country. My daughter is ill and has no health care. Charlie and George think lapel pins and Tuzla and I don't know what are the most important things of all? I turned it off.

I'm not a shill for Clinton. In fact, I'm an independent. But as a middle class person (who does own stocks!) I was really perturbed about what Obama said. Is this a long-term position of his? What I got is that Obama is willing to raise my taxes even though it won't benefit the country. I might not mind paying higher taxes to help the country. I do mind paying higher taxes because some secretary is jealous!

George S shouldn't been anywhere near the podium tonight. He is a former Clinton stooge and was obviously bias. She wasn't asked about Mark Penn or Colombia. ABC should be ashamed of itself for the insulting show it put on tonight!

Hillary forgets that the years her cigar man was prez was also the time or birth of jobs being lost after the NAfta which of course he had trillions in surplus? money for investments made over seas in migrating jobs there through the trade deal. now the domino effect has finally arrived what damage it has done has surfaced. In the debate she also said that she will put 100 police officers on the streets in Philadephia with assault rifles..sounds like she's bring the war home with that kind of talk. And she said religion wasn,t her priority ,that she wouldn,t lean on faith in hard economic times like Obamma, it shows in her hard face and demeaner like the ice queen she is.

Hillary went too far in slamming Obama, looking overeager to see him crushed. Only helps McCain.

And Obama seemed jittery and unsure in a lot of his key answers. Not what worried voters wanted on the SanFran comments and Rev. Wright (which blew back into the discussion thanks to relentless pounding from Charlie and George).

It is appalling that ABC thinks the American people are so ignorant that we can't handle a more substantive discussion. I felt as though I was watching some version of tabloid television. I guess we shouldn't be surprised as there are rumors George S. met with Fox News to gather information for the debate according to Daily Kos. This was the absolute worst debate ever.

This was the worst debate in modern memory. The questioners did a disservice to every american who cares more about their life than issues like flag pins and gun registration. Also while they are at it why not flash Chelsea's face more to drum up support for Clinton. This debate was appalling and a good example of why political democracy is so trashy in America today.

Well, this was by far the weakest debate of the 21. The moderators were not very good. It appeared to be very one-sided, and I couldn't help but tune out the first 30-45 minutes when all the questions were centered around scandal. The voters want to hear the issues. Poor choice of questions ABC.